Do humans need a moral code to do the 'right thing'?

[pessimist]

Laws are obviously to maintain order, but do we actually need a code to follow in order not rape, pillage, murder, torture, and commit arson? Do we really need to have morals to hold the door open for the person in back of us, or to help the proverbial little old lady across the street?

[pessimist]

For example, I have no desire to murder or rape anyone. Even if those two things were LEGAL, I still would lack the desire or impulse. But yet, I don't believe in a God, subscribe to any moral code, or adhere to any religious teachings.

Holding the door open for folks, helping those in your immediate area who need it, etc should come naturally to a person, right?

Why do we need a code to follow in order to do what is right? I have never understood that.

[Occam's Banana]

The concept of "the 'right thing'" necessarily implies a "moral code" of some kind - that is, it requires some standard by which to judge whether some action is (or is not) "the 'right thing'." Such standards are denoted by the concept of a "moral code." Without some (at least implicit) "moral code," the concept of "the 'right thing'" is meaningless.

[D]o we actually need a code to follow in order not rape, pillage, murder, torture, and commit arson?

It is not a matter of "needing" a moral code in order not to rape, pillage, murder, etc.

To think (for whatever reason) that one should refrain form raping, pillaging, murdering, etc. *is* a "moral code."

Do we really need to have morals to hold the door open for the person in back of us, or to help the proverbial little old lady across the street?

The particular things you mention here are not matters of morality.
They are matters of etiquette & cultural customs But setting such quibbles aside ...

To believe that one ought (or ought not) to do certain things (such as "to hold the door open for the person in back of us, or to help the proverbial little old lady across the street") is what it means to "have morals" (or to have a "moral code"). Given the meanings of the concepts involved, it is not possible to think that something is (or is not) "the 'right thing' to do" without also having some kind of (at least implicit) "moral code."

IOW: To think that something is (or is not) "the 'right thing' to do" is what it means to have some kind of "moral code" - and vice versa (having some kind of "moral code" is what it means to think that something is or is not "the 'right thing' to do"). You can't possibly have one without the other.

For example, I have no desire to murder or rape anyone. Even if those two things were LEGAL, I still would lack the desire or impulse. But yet, I don't believe in a God, subscribe to any moral code, or adhere to any religious teachings.

But other people manifestly do NOT "lack the desire or impulse" to murder or rape (or whatever).

Unless you believe that those who DO have the "desire or impulse" to murder or rape (or anything else) may act on those desires or impulses with impunity and without interference or condemnation, then you DO, in fact, have a "moral code" - despite any disclaimers you might make to the contrary.

IOW: If you think that something - anything - is (or is not) "the 'right thing' to do" (for any reason), then ipso facto you DO have a "moral code."

Holding the door open for folks, helping those in your immediate area who need it, etc should come naturally to a person, right?

But if we do not have some "moral code" (regardless of whether it "comes naturally" to us or not) by which to make such assessments, how can we say that anything "should" (or "should not") be the case? Indeed, how could we even use the word "should" at all? The very word "should" is heavily gravid with "moral code" implications.

Why do we need a code to follow in order to do what is right? I have never understood that.

As I stated above, it is not a matter of "needing" a code "in order to do what is right."

Any conception we might have of "what is right" *is* a moral code.

So your question really amounts to: "Why do we need a code to follow in order to follow a code?"

[PaulConventionWV]

Laws are obviously to maintain order, but do we actually need a code to follow in order not rape, pillage, murder, torture, and commit arson? Do we really need to have morals to hold the door open for the person in back of us, or to help the proverbial little old lady across the street?

Of course. That's what a moral code is: a set of rules that define right and wrong. If you don't have a moral code, then there's no way to tell what right and wrong is. Furthermore, it helps to have the same moral code as everyone else, or there's no way you can justify criticizing someone for doing the "wrong" thing.

It also helps if that moral code is defined by something greater than humanity (read: God) because, otherwise, the moral code is just arbitrary. Humans cannot be trusted to create their own moral code, since there's an obvious conflict of interest there. The only way we can say that one moral code is better than another is if that one moral did not come from one of us, but from something outside of us, greater than us, something omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent.

[PaulConventionWV]

For example, I have no desire to murder or rape anyone. Even if those two things were LEGAL, I still would lack the desire or impulse. But yet, I don't believe in a God, subscribe to any moral code, or adhere to any religious teachings.

Holding the door open for folks, helping those in your immediate area who need it, etc should come naturally to a person, right?

Why do we need a code to follow in order to do what is right? I have never understood that.

You can't count on everyone to lack that desire, nor can you necessarily say that you will always lack that desire. If someone else's interests conflict with yours and you could get out of it by killing them, you would then have the motivation and probably the desire. What would stop you then?

[pcosmar]

You, who are on the road must have a code that you can live by.

[erowe1]

Laws are obviously to maintain order, but do we actually need a code to follow in order not rape, pillage, murder, torture, and commit arson? Do we really need to have morals to hold the door open for the person in back of us, or to help the proverbial little old lady across the street?

Simply doing those things doesn't logically require that a moral code exist.

But if a moral code doesn't exist, then there's nothing right about doing them or wrong about doing the opposite.

However, since we know that there are such things as right and wrong, it follows that a moral code does exist, along with a transcendent law giver and judge.

[Carlybee]

We don't know if those things come naturally. They are not inherent, but learned. If you raise a child with no nurturing whatsoever he could easily turn out to be Hannibal Lector.

[Deborah K]

You, who are on the road must have a code that you can live by.

Exactly. We become what we are taught, and what we are consistently exposed to.

[CPUd]

If we're going to be drawing up a moral code, rule #1 is that the OP needs to man up. There isn't a rule #2.

[Ronin Truth]

Only the children and sheeple.

[PierzStyx]

We don't know if those things come naturally. They are not inherent, but learned. If you raise a child with no nurturing whatsoever he could easily turn out to be Hannibal Lector.

One could easily argue the opposite. That such a code exists is evidence that someone in the past who didn't have it developed it. That means at least one person in the past without nurturing at all developed the moral code of themselves.

[Deborah K]

One could easily argue the opposite. That such a code exists is evidence that someone in the past who didn't have it developed it. That means at least one person in the past without nurturing at all developed the moral code of themselves.

Trial and error is how we learn. And God helped us too, with the Ten Commandments.

[erowe1]

One could easily argue the opposite. That such a code exists is evidence that someone in the past who didn't have it developed it. That means at least one person in the past without nurturing at all developed the moral code of themselves.

If rules are just made up by people, then they don't really constitute a moral code. They would just be like the rules of a game that could just as easily have been something else, where neither version is really right or really wrong.

[pessimist]

The concept of "the 'right thing'" necessarily implies a "moral code" of some kind - that is, it requires some standard by which to judge whether some action is (or is not) "the 'right thing'

Agree. However, based on what we define as 'right' and 'wrong' can come naturally to a person regardless of what their belief system is. After all, even animals are capable of expressing sympathy and doing 'good' without even understanding the concepts.

We have laws to keep society in check and in functioning order. However, these laws are there not to enforce any morals- they are there to enforce rules. We all know that murder is illegal, but yet people still commit murder. Why is that? Do you really believe that all people would kill if they were not instructed that it is wrong?

Such standards are denoted by the concept of a "moral code." Without some (at least implicit) "moral code," the concept of "the 'right thing'" is meaningless.

Ok where do these morals come from? Let's say we have no concept of 'right', we were never taught it. Do you think humans would naturally do the aforementioned things like rape, murder, and torture? Would we all be 'barbarians'?

It is not a matter of "needing" a moral code in order not to rape, pillage, murder, etc. To think (for whatever reason) that one should refrain form raping, pillaging, murdering, etc. *is* a "moral code."

A poster on this very site said in another thread said that he would probably be a rapist if he didn't have any morals/ethics. Generally, people who do wretched and vile things are thought to be lacking morals. So, with that logic, wouldn't it make sense that people who DO refrain from such activities are defacto "moral"?

The particular things you mention here are not matters of morality.


They are matters of etiquette & cultural customs But setting such quibbles aside ..

Yes, but they come from the same place, don't they? I mean, someone who thinks of themselves as 'moral' will try to do what is 'right' in all situations. Social etiquette, politeness, etc. is deemed to be 'right behavior'. I am just asking the question: can't people do these things instinctively without having some moral compass to guide them?

But other people manifestly do NOT "lack the desire or impulse" to murder or rape (or whatever).

Exactly. And those people likely act on their impulses regardless of any laws, morals, or religious dogma.

Unless you believe that those who DO have the "desire or impulse" to murder or rape (or anything else) may act on those desires or impulses with impunity and without interference or condemnation, then you DO, in fact, have a "moral code" - despite any disclaimers you might make to the contrary.

Can animals have morals?

As I stated above, it is not a matter of "needing" a code "in order to do what is right."
Any conception we might have of "what is right" *is* a moral code.

I realize that. I am just saying based on what we know of what is "right"- can people still do what we all understand to be good, right, and proper, without even understanding the concepts or why?

For example, can a child demonstrate 'moral' behavior without even knowing what morals are?

[staerker]

Agree. However, based on what we define as 'right' and 'wrong' can come naturally to a person regardless of what their belief system is. After all, even animals are capable of expressing sympathy and doing 'good' without even understanding the concepts.

As a Christian, I believe that you don't have to recognize any Biblical moral code, to be aware of a foundational one.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[PaulConventionWV]

We don't know if those things come naturally. They are not inherent, but learned. If you raise a child with no nurturing whatsoever he could easily turn out to be Hannibal Lector.

I'm not so sure about that. You would have to cite your sources. This is the epic "nature vs. nurture" debate, and you're saying it's all nurture that causes us to be good. Again, I would have to see some research from you on that topic to know where you're coming from.

[dannno]

For example, I have no desire to murder or rape anyone. Even if those two things were LEGAL, I still would lack the desire or impulse. But yet, I don't believe in a God, subscribe to any moral code, or adhere to any religious teachings.

Holding the door open for folks, helping those in your immediate area who need it, etc should come naturally to a person, right?

Why do we need a code to follow in order to do what is right? I have never understood that.

You are mixing moral code with following laws when they aren't related - the reason you hold your beliefs that "come naturally to you" is due to your moral code. Therefore, you don't require laws to follow that code, the laws are there for those who lack the moral code. If rape and stealing was legal, I wouldn't do it either because of my moral code. From previous discussions I would say your lack of wanting to rape may stem more from your entire lack of wanting to have sex in the first place than your moral code. Though your moral code seems to be strong enough that it would hold even if your desires were greater.

[otherone]

One could easily argue the opposite. That such a code exists is evidence that someone in the past who didn't have it developed it. That means at least one person in the past without nurturing at all developed the moral code of themselves.

[dannno]

We all know that murder is illegal, but yet people still commit murder. Why is that? Do you really believe that all people would kill if they were not instructed that it is wrong?

I think where you are confused is that morals can be innate and they can also be nurtured.

A person might have a natural instinct that stealing is wrong from birth, yet many children need to be told not to steal other children's toys. Once they understand and have empathy for the other child whose toy they intend to steal, these same children may develop a moral code that inhibits them from hurting others.

This moral code can be both nurtured or degraded throughout a lifetime. Part of maintaining the moral code is being at peace with other people. If you think other people are good, or at least some are, then you will have greater empathy than if you are under the impression that all other people are enemies and only trying to hurt you.

[PaulConventionWV]

Agree. However, based on what we define as 'right' and 'wrong' can come naturally to a person regardless of what their belief system is. After all, even animals are capable of expressing sympathy and doing 'good' without even understanding the concepts.

If morality simply came naturally to us, we wouldn't have to think about it. It would be an instinct to do good. Given that this is obviously not the case, however, we must make the decision to be good. That necessitates that we hold a moral code in order to keep ourselves in check. Nobody is exempt from this. There is not a single person to whom goodness comes naturally because, first of all, you would have to define what is good in order to call the person's instinctual behavior "good." Secondly, it is easily observable that self-interest is first and foremost on our minds, as it is for all animals. Since our self-interest often conflicts with what most of us would define as good, then the only thing that keeps us from acting in our self-interest is a conscious decision not to act in our self-interest. The reasons we give ourselves for not doing evil things in our self-interest is our moral code.

We have laws to keep society in check and in functioning order. However, these laws are there not to enforce any morals- they are there to enforce rules. We all know that murder is illegal, but yet people still commit murder. Why is that? Do you really believe that all people would kill if they were not instructed that it is wrong?

Not all people, but some people. The fact that many of them don't suggests they have a moral code. And no, I don't believe they would because I believe moral codes are ingrained in us. You might say these moral codes come naturally. That does NOT mean that moral behavior comes naturally, but a sense of the fact that there is a difference between right and wrong deeds is contained within all of us to some extent, and recognizing the difference between right and wrong deeds necessitates the existence of a moral code.

Ok where do these morals come from? Let's say we have no concept of 'right', we were never taught it. Do you think humans would naturally do the aforementioned things like rape, murder, and torture? Would we all be 'barbarians'?

If we have no concept of right, then we would act purely in our own self-interest. Sometimes our interest coincides with our ideas of what is good, but there are also times when it does not. Those are the times when a moral code is necessary. It's not what you do when everyone is watching. It's what you do when nobody is watching.

A poster on this very site said in another thread said that he would probably be a rapist if he didn't have any morals/ethics. Generally, people who do wretched and vile things are thought to be lacking morals. So, with that logic, wouldn't it make sense that people who DO refrain from such activities are defacto "moral"?

Yes, but why don't they do those things? Because they have a moral code that tells them not to.

Yes, but they come from the same place, don't they? I mean, someone who thinks of themselves as 'moral' will try to do what is 'right' in all situations. Social etiquette, politeness, etc. is deemed to be 'right behavior'. I am just asking the question: can't people do these things instinctively without having some moral compass to guide them?

No. I don't think you fully understand what a moral code is. A moral code is the reasons you give yourself for acting "good" even when it is not in your self-interest to do so.

Exactly. And those people likely act on their impulses regardless of any laws, morals, or religious dogma.

So you're saying that being good can be an impulse just like being bad? Again, I think you misunderstand. The only impulse is to act in your own self-interest, regardless of whether that self-interest is considered right or wrong.

Can animals have morals?

I highly doubt it. They have really only ever been observed to act in their own self-interest. Sometimes that self-interest involves things like murder and rape. They do it anyway because they don't have a conscience.

I realize that. I am just saying based on what we know of what is "right"- can people still do what we all understand to be good, right, and proper, without even understanding the concepts or why?

For example, can a child demonstrate 'moral' behavior without even knowing what morals are?

No, I don't think they can do what we consider to be "right" when it is against their self-interest without understanding the concept. That is because I believe we all have this concept ingrained in us from birth. Maybe not the whole package, but we have the ability to understand these things to some extent.

[pessimist]

You are mixing moral code with following laws when they aren't related - the reason you hold your beliefs that "come naturally to you" is due to your moral code.

No, I don't rape or murder because I have zero desire to do so.

Therefore, you don't require laws to follow that code, the laws are there for those who lack the moral code

No, we have laws to keep order. People with no 'morals' are indifferent to laws.

If rape and stealing was legal, I wouldn't do it either because of my moral code.

Stealing is directly linked to 'morality' (as we understand it). It's human nature to desire material goods. A child will take something off the shelf at the supermarket instinctively. They have no concept of stealing.

However, generally speaking, a child will NOT naturally desire to torture animals or smash their mother in the face with a hammer. SOME children do. It has nothing to do with morality.

our lack of wanting to rape may stem more from your entire lack of wanting to have sex in the first place than your moral code.

lol. You make it seem like I am castrated or an automaton or something, I have sexual desire- I just have no interest promiscuity or rape.

[dannno]

No, I don't rape or murder because I have zero desire to do so.

You don't have a desire to rape primarily because you don't have a desire to have sex haphazardly or outside of a more serious relationship. A lot of guys do want to have sex haphazardly or outside a committed relationship - they don't desire to rape because of a moral code, also because I don't think the experience of raping somebody would be a very good one anyway, as I've kept saying most rapists even prefer consensual sex to rape. Rape in most cases comes from desperation for sex.

You don't have a desire to murder because you don't currently have any enemies, most people who commit murder have a motivation to do so. They don't just murder people because they want to go around murdering people. That would also be a minority of murderers, most people who murder are not serial killers.

No, we have laws to keep order. People with no 'morals' are indifferent to laws.

Totally false!! People with no 'morals' are indifferent to laws INSOFAR s they can get away with what they do!! There are plenty of people with no morals who don't steal because they are afraid of going to prison. That is why laws exist, they are for people who don't have morals.

lol. You make it seem like I am castrated or an automaton or something, I have sexual desire- I just have no interest promiscuity or casual sex or rape.

If you aren't interested in casual sex it may be for several reasons - you believe in monogamy and love or you are afraid of getting STIs or impregnating somebody and I would also imagine it is combined with a relatively low sex drive unless those fears and beliefs are REALLY strong for whatever reason.

[pessimist]

You don't have a desire to rape because you don't have a desire to have sex. You don't have a desire to murder because you don't currently have any enemies, most people who commit murder have a motivation to do so. They don't just murder people because they want to go around murdering people.

This is ridiculous. People with an insatiable appetite to kill will murder irrespective of laws. People commit illegal acts all the time. You cannot legislate morality.

Totally false!! People with no 'morals' are indifferent to laws INSOFAR s they can get away with what they do!! There are plenty of people with no morals who don't steal because they are afraid of going to prison. That is why laws exist, they are for people who don't have morals.

There are PRACTICAL reason for laws. I don't see how 'morality' has anything to do with it. People engage in amoral behavior all the time.

If you aren't interested in casual sex it may be for several reasons - you believe in monogamy and love or you are afraid of getting STIs or impregnating somebody and I would also imagine it is combined with a relatively low sex drive unless those fears and beliefs are REALLY strong for whatever reason.

Yes, there are LOGICAL reasons as to why I don't partake is such activities, but I also just lack the desire. A person who wants to rape, will probably rape.

[Carlybee]

I'm not so sure about that. You would have to cite your sources. This is the epic "nature vs. nurture" debate, and you're saying it's all nurture that causes us to be good. Again, I would have to see some research from you on that topic to know where you're coming from.

I don't have any research, although I have read that babies who are not nurtured fail to thrive.

[dannno]

pessimist, you should re-read the refined version of my post above, it looks like you got a lesser edited version. I believe I clarified a few things and I'll be repeating myself a lot here..

This is ridiculous. People with an insatiable appetite to kill will murder irrespective of laws.

Again, most people who murder do not have an insatiable appetite to kill, they have an enemy who they are mad at or has something they want and they believe at least in the short term it would serve themselves personally if they were dead and they lack the moral fortitude to stop themselves from killing their enemy. For example, a guy kills the man who slept with his wife - if his wife had not slept with another guy he may have never committed murder in his entire life, it was his wife sleeping with another guy that spurred him to commit murder. His lack of moral code, in understanding that others including his wife have the right to make her own decisions and live her own life and he does not own her is what caused him to commit the murder.

People commit illegal acts all the time. You cannot legislate morality.

You CAN legislate morality, some people don't smoke weed because it is illegal. Obviously not very effective, but it does have an effect. It's just not good to legislate morality unless it is defending people's rights because it can have unintended consequences like the war on drugs.

People without morals also avoid committing crimes at times because they are afraid of being caught. There are plenty of women who steal $#@! from stores all the time, some of them get caught and stop stealing, others keep doing it, but less often and are more careful.

Yes, there are LOGICAL reasons as to why I don't partake is such activities, but I also just lack the desire. A person who wants to rape, will probably rape.

Again, I'm going to go with the murderer/serial killer analogy here. Most rapists don't want to rape, they want consensual sex. Most murderers don't want to murder, they want their wife to stop having sex with other men or they want the money or possessions that the person they are murdering has. They don't commit murder just to murder, there is another motivation. Very few murderers murder for the sake of murdering, these are serial killers which is very uncommon.

The amount of men who rape because they actually want to rape and not because they want to have consensual sex with the person they are raping is also very slim. The fact that they exist is merely used as a propaganda tool by feminists to show that since THIS ONE GUY raped a girl because he likes to rape, that some how every guy who rapes really likes rape and it has nothing to do with the motivation of wanting to have sex - which is total bull$#@!.

[pessimist]

pessimist, you should re-read the refined version of my post above, it looks like you got a lesser edited version. I believe I clarified a few things and I'll be repeating myself a lot here..

Again, most people who murder do not have an insatiable appetite to kill, they have an enemy who they are mad at or has something they want and they believe at least in the short term it would serve themselves personally if they were dead and they lack the moral fortitude to stop themselves from killing their enemy. For example, a guy kills the man who slept with his wife - if his wife had not slept with another guy he may have never committed murder in his entire life, it was his wife sleeping with another guy that spurred him to commit murder. His lack of moral code, in understanding that others including his wife have the right to make her own decisions and live her own life and he does not own her is what caused him to commit the murder.

Okay, you are equating a fear of punishment to morality.

It is not a 'moral code' that prevents a guy from murdering his cheating wife; it's a fear of getting caught. Hence, the practical need for laws. There are MANY folks who do murder, despite their fear of prison. Laws are there for keep ORDER, not to enforce some moral compass.

A 'moral' person wouldn't want to kill in the first place. Obviously, we’ve all had dark thoughts and have experienced fleeting moments of anger where we had undesirable urges, but they were only momentary. Actual murder takes a certain type of psychological wiring that frankly a large percentage of people just don’t possess.

You CAN legislate morality, some people don't smoke weed because it is illegal. Obviously not very effective, but it does have an effect. It's just not good to legislate morality unless it is defending people's rights because it can have unintended consequences like the war on drugs.

Lol. What? If people WANT to smoke weed but refuse to do so for the fear of getting busted, that has NOTHING to do with morality. It has to do with fear of punishment.

But you're correct that a lot of folks, particularly those who are religious minded, repress their urges and desires in order to follow a moral code and practice 'proper' living. However, there are many people out there who live good clean lives and don't follow ANY code. They just are that way by nature.

Why can't you understand this?

[dannno]

Okay, you are equating a fear of punishment to morality.

No, I'm saying it is a backup. It is better if people don't steal and hurt each other because they have empathy for others. If they don't have empathy or morals, then we create legislation to protect our rights as a backup. If everybody had empathy and morals, laws would not really be needed. We create laws first to protect people's rights, and secondarily hope that those who would commit crimes against others anyway may reconsider due to the punishment they receive if caught.

It is not a 'moral code' that prevents a guy from murdering his cheating wife; it's a fear of getting caught.

Not true, when I had a gf the primary reason I didn't cheat on her was because I didn't want to hurt her feelings if she found out. Secondarily, if she found out she might break up with me. In this case, fear of getting caught and having my gf break up with me represents the 'law' because it is not against the law to cheat on your gf, but I would have received a punishment of being broken up with. But really my morals stopped me from cheating on her, primarily, because I didn't want to hurt her feelings.

I knew I could personally go out and get laid and still have strong feelings for my gf and the sexual adventure would be purely physical, but since I had such strong feelings for her at the time I wouldn't have wanted to do anything to hurt her so I avoided attempting to have sex with other females.

A 'moral' person wouldn't want to kill in the first place. Obviously, we’ve all had dark thoughts and have experienced fleeting moments of anger where we had undesirable urges, but they were only momentary. Actual murder takes a certain type of psychological wiring that frankly a large percentage of people just don’t possess.

The psychological wiring you are talking about is lack of morals - we have all had dark moments and gotten mad at somebody, but we don't turn to murder because that is against our morals. There are levels of morality, one person may be against murder but ok with beating people up or stealing. One person may consider murder and then unconsider due to their morals, for the other person it may never become a consideration. Both situations rely on morals.

Lol. What? If people WANT to smoke weed but refuse to do so for the fear of getting busted, that has NOTHING to do with morality. It has to do with fear of punishment.

Yes, I'm contradicting a statement you made earlier that just because laws exist doesn't mean that people will stop doing bad things - that is incorrect - it will deter SOME people from doing bad things, and that is the goal of the laws. But that is my whole point, laws only work sometimes when people think they might get caught whereas the moral person won't do it anyway.

But you're correct that a lot of folks, particularly those who are religious minded, repress their urges and desires in order to follow a moral code and practice 'proper' living.

Actually that has nothing to do with morals, they live that way because they are scared of going to hell. That is really more like living in fear of the law than actually having morals.

However, there are many people out there who live good clean lives and don't follow ANY code. They just are that way by nature.

Actually you've got it backwards, they are following their own moral code if they are living a good clean life and doing so not because -

a) They are only afraid of going to jail

b) They are only afraid of going to hell


What I've been saying from the beginning is that it is better people don't murder or rape because they are morally opposed to it rather than because they are scared of going to jail or going to hell. If a religious person doesn't steal ONLY because they are afraid of going to hell, what happens if they denounce their religion? Their morals could easily slide right with it and now they are a thief. If they had the morality not to steal because they empathize with others who they are stealing from, it doesn't matter if they denounce their religion or lawlessness breaks out, they still won't steal - that is preferable, right?

[pessimist]

No, I'm saying it is a backup. It is better if people don't steal and hurt each other because they have empathy for others. If they don't have empathy or morals, then we create legislation to protect our rights as a backup. If everybody had empathy and morals, laws would not really be needed. We create laws first to protect people's rights, and secondarily hope that those who would commit crimes against others anyway may reconsider due to the punishment they receive if caught.

Laws = Order

Everyone could be an egalitarian peace loving hippie with a preference for the commune and laws would still be necessary.

Not true, when I had a gf the primary reason I didn't cheat on her was because I didn't want to hurt her feelings if she found out. Secondarily, if she found out she might break up with me.

Did you desire to cheat on her?

But really my morals stopped me from cheating on her

Are you sure it was your 'morals', and not the ability to foresee the consequences of your actions based on a fear of being alone?

I knew I could personally go out and get laid and still have strong feelings for my gf and the sexual adventure would be purely physical, but since I had such strong feelings for her at the time I wouldn't have wanted to do anything to hurt her so I avoided attempting to have sex with other females.

No offense, but your apparent fixation on sex makes me find your self-professed faithfulness to be unlikely or long lasting.

The psychological wiring you are talking about is lack of morals

So you believe we are born either moral or amoral? Are you insinuating that morality is not learned or given to us via a preternatural creator?

But that is my whole point, laws only work sometimes when people think they might get caught whereas the moral person won't do it anyway.

Okay? That is been my entire point all along?

Actually that has nothing to do with morals, they live that way because they are scared of going to hell. That is really more like living in fear of the law than actually having morals.

I am of the opinion that people who resist their inner-nature and force themselves to live a 'moral life' are the only folks following a 'moral code'. Morals are for those who need rules to follow in order to do what is right.

Actually you've got it backwards, they are following their own moral code if they are living a good clean life and doing so not because -
a) They are only afraid of going to jail
b) They are only afraid of going to hell

You do realize that some folks just are not wired to rape, murder, terrorize, and burn down buildings full of school children, right?

A guy with an incredible urge to rape or murder may fool himself into believing that his 'morals' are preventing him from doing so, but eventually the degenerate is going to give into his natural instincts or find a way to rationalize them.

[dannno]

Laws = Order

Everyone could be an egalitarian peace loving hippie with a preference for the commune and laws would still be necessary.

No, that is completely wrong, if people had empathy and did not want to hurt each other then there would be no need for laws. Laws are for people without morals.

Did you desire to cheat on her?

I saw other females who I wanted to have sex with, but I didn't want to cheat on her primarily because it would hurt her feelings.

Are you sure it was your 'morals', and not the ability to foresee the consequences of your actions based on a fear of being alone?

Are you reading what I'm writing carefully? I specifically said that the primary reason I didn't cheat on her was because I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Secondarily, I didn't want her to break up with me. You can choose to believe me or not, but I specifically said the primary reason I didn't cheat on her was because I didn't want to hurt her feelings. I saw other girls I wanted to have sex with, but did not attempt to do it because it would hurt her feelings if she found out. The consequence of that would be that she would break up with me, probably, although even if she didn't it wouldn't matter because I knew it would hurt her feelings and that was enough for me not to do it.

No offense, but your apparent fixation on sex makes me find your self-professed faithfulness to be unlikely or long lasting.

It's ok, my ex had a fixation on sex too so it worked out pretty well. A lot of people have a fixation on sex, it's a normal healthy biological function. Just because you don't doesn't make you 'normal'.. I wouldn't say there is necessarily anything wrong with you, but I would rather have my sex drive than not, as much pain and everything else that it can cause it also makes me feel very alive and it can be very exciting.

So you believe we are born either moral or amoral? Are you insinuating that morality is not learned or given to us via a preternatural creator?

No I think some people are born moral, and others are nurtured into it. Some people are born moral and nurtured out of it. I think it depends a lot on how you view the rest of humanity, as being 'on your team' or 'against you'.

I am of the opinion that people who resist their inner-nature and force themselves to live a 'moral life' are the only folks following a 'moral code'. Morals are for those who need rules to follow in order to do what is right.

I asked you before and you never answered, you have no desire for anything you don't have? What stops you from obtaining it? You think stealing is wrong, so you have some morals.

You do realize that some folks just are not wired to rape, murder, terrorize, and burn down buildings full of school children, right?

Yes, I would put both of us in that category. I desire to have sex with a beautiful woman, she doesn't want to have sex with me. I really wish she would change her mind, I would possibly pay her to change her mind, but I'm not going to force her to have sex because I'm not wired that way.. but I still am wired to have the desire to have sex with her in some way shape or form, other than rape. So I'm not wired to rape.

There are plenty of people who are immoral and would rape, but they don't need to rape because they can get laid without raping or like you they have little desire for sex. That doesn't make them a great person, in fact, they will probably use immoral dishonest means to obtain other things they desire more strongly which may lead to theft, hurting people, murder, etc.

I assume based on your statements that you either have little or no desire for ANYTHING in life, material or otherwise, or you have some moral code that prevents you from taking those things, or you are scared of going to jail. There is little other option.

A guy with an incredible urge to rape or murder may fool himself into believing that his 'morals' are preventing him from doing so, but eventually the degenerate is going to give into his natural instincts or find a way to rationalize them.

Dude, you are just not getting what I'm saying at all. Most people who rape and murder don't want to rape and murder, the rapist wants sex that they can't obtain and the murderer has some motive for murder besides killing people. The fact is MOST people desire to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with them, their moral code, social code, legal code all come together to prevent them from fulfilling those desires. MOST people want a nicer car or a nicer house or nice jewelry that they can't obtain, but due to their moral code, social code, legal code that all comes together this prevents most people from fulfilling those desires through theft or murder. It may NEVER occur to most people to engage in these activities, but that is irrelevant, they still have the desire. The person without morals is the one who says hey, I want that, I am going to take it, and there is no voice on the other side telling them not to do it or the voice telling them not to do it is not strong enough. It's that simple.